The Media’s And Mayor’s Debacle On The Claims Of Ida

Last year there was media-frenzied presentation of Ida which captivated the mayor of NY who revealed the specimen at a press conference. The history channel already had a documentary waiting in the wings. Sky News said this…This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals,” he said. “This is the one that connects us directly with them. “Now people can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link’. “The link they would have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.”

However not all were convinced that Ida was a distant relative of humans while others believed that future science would fill in the gaps which is very common in evolutionary thinking. Some pro-evolutionists began to call this hype as “shoddy scholarship” and live science had published very critical pieces on Ida.

So-called ‘missing links’ are hyped for a reason, it’s a money maker and it draws interest to the evolutionary side. In this case, the hype and so-called ‘evidence’ was disproved again as science daily reports…

“In an article now available online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.”

“They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.”

Ida had nothing to do with human evolution despite all the hype from the media and some scientists. Ida has nothing to do with evolution in general. Ida was a well created animal with variations within primates that existed. Show us the evidence we say and here’s how they go about doing it…

It was noted for it’s exceptional preservation and it’s shady past. In 1983, the fossil was discovered in a private collection and split into two halves. A Wyoming fossil collector had dressed it up to make it look complete said science daily. As for the other half, it stood on a German collector’s wall till 2006 which later fell into the hands of a private fossil dealer who presented it at a trade show. One million dollars was raised to obtain it which is ten times the normal price for rare fossils.

Even though the Ida claims have been put to rest you still see fudging going on by this latest research by referring to a what I call an attempt to rescue their hypothesis known as convergent evolution. They said certain traits are “known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage.” Known? Are they willing to swear they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth rather than just speculating?


8 thoughts on “The Media’s And Mayor’s Debacle On The Claims Of Ida

  1. Michael: “Are they willing to swear they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth rather than just speculating?”

    You confuse evidence in court with scientific evidence. Quite a world apart, Michael !

  2. “They said certain traits are “known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage.” Known? Are they willing to swear they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth rather than just speculating?”

    How about yourself, Michael? Are you willing to swear to tell the truth about—well, about almost anything you have said?

    March 5 post: “However, natural selection is unable to function as well because there is no replicator.” (Pointed out as false.)

    March 5 post: “The multiple solvents were also used at various temperatures.” (You can read the preceding PNAS quote yourself to see that this is a lie.)

    Feb 27 post: “Water creatures mixed in with land creatures in the fossil record is one of the indicators for something very destructive, we know it as it’s commonly called; Noah’s flood.” (The fossils were found in a lake bed. Destructive event? LIE. Flood? LIE)

    Three bald-faced lies in the past two posts alone. And Michael asks scientists to swear to the truth?


  3. It’s difficult to see what Michael has to crow about.

    Michael himself pointed out that many paleontologists at the time disputed the hypothesis that Ida was a lineal precursor of hominids.[1]

    So scientists looked at the evidence for Ida, looked at previously obtained evidence, did some more original research, and came up with a conclusion. that Ida took another branch in the evolutionary tree. Ida is our fifth cousin, not our great grandfather.

    The point is, as always, that no one’s claim is taken as—pardon the expression—gospel in science. Papers are published, not to elicit belief, but for criticism and replication by others. Which happened in this case, exactly as it is supposed to.


    Can we say that about any creationist claims, ever? Of course not.

    Michael: “The foundation of animals were created in two days, all at once in a fully formed capacity but variants of those ancient species didn’t come till later.”

    Any published papers on that theory, Michael? Fat chance.

    Any geological evidence for that? Don’t be silly.

    Any experiments or simulations to demonstrate a creation mechanism or model? Good luck.

    Any criticism allowed from, say, faculties of Biola University, Liberty U, Pacific Union College, Southern Adventist U, or any other church colleges that force their faculty to take a pledge to uphold biblical literalism? How about the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis? Has any author of a paper in those journals ever criticized any other paper in those journals? Would they dare?

    [1] Post on May 29, 2009. Michael quotes from Live Science: ““On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they’re proposing.”

    “They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes.”

    “This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. “And they failed to cite a body of literature that’s been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.”


    Well, Michael, the complete set of 7-year data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe has been analyzed.

    The universe is 13,750,000,000 years old, plus or minus 110 million. (Previous data pegged the age at 13.73 billion, +/- 0.12 billion.)

    Some other interesting numbers for creationists are the composition: 4.5% (+/-0.16) is ordinary touchy-feely baryonic matter; 22.7% (+/-1.4) non-baryonic matter—i.e., cold dark matter; and 72.8% (+/-1.5) dark energy.

    The reionization redshift is 10.4 (+/-0.2).

    As you are of course aware, there are a number of alternative big-bang and inflation models; you have sneered at them several times. The 7-year WMAP data rules out a number of cold big-bang models, and all but two inflation scenarios. The possible forms of dark energy were also reduced; the leading contender is now Λ.

    Your readers will expect a full refutal of these results, based upon your analysis of data from the Flood Underground Cosmic Kaleidoscope, showing that the universe is in fact only 37 (+/-5) months old, and is actually deflating.


    Just in case you’d care to go and marvel at it, the primary source paper is Komatsu et al., “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation” v2 12 Feb 2010; cite as arXiv:1001.4538v2 [astro-ph.CO]. The other papers are “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Are There Cosmic Microwave Background Anomalies?” (arXiv:1001.4758); “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Planets and Celestial Calibration Sources” (arXiv:1001.4731); “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results” (arXiv:1001.4744); “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Power Spectra and WMAP-Derived Parameters” (arXiv:1001.4635); and “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Galactic Foreground Emission” (arXiv:1001.4555).

    De Mazzel

  5. Seven years already – and still getting those uncertainties down !
    WMAP has done very well indeed.

  6. The 7-year WMAP results confirmed a precise prediction made years ago by cosmologists. If the theory is correct that the hot and cold spots in the cosmic microwave background are actually sound waves in the nascent universe, then the spots should be surrounded by circular rings of precise sizes with changing polarization—outwardly radial to tangential for cold spots, vice versa for hot spots.

    These effects are exactly what was found.

    Inflation theories predict that the statistical distribution of primordial temperature fluctuations should follow a Gaussian curve, f(T) = 1/(2PiSigma^2)e^-(T-Mu)^2/2Sigma^2), with random phases.

    WMAP measurements almost certainly preclude models of the early universe that do not incorporate inflation.


    So, Michael, what do creationists predict for the temperature and polarization patterns of the cosmic microwave background radiation, from their assumption of a 6,000 year age of the universe?

  7. Interesting post, Michael. Personally, I find it remarkable people keep falling for such shambolic Evolutionist pretensions. Guess it goes to show the power of Naturalistic dogma.

  8. U/D: “The universe is 13,750,000,000 years old, plus or minus 110 million. (Previous data pegged the age at 13.73 billion, +/- 0.12 billion.)”

    Just in time to confirm the universe’s age made by a totally different method. The march 1, 2010 issue of The Astrophysical Journal reports an age of 13.75 (+/-0.17) billion years by using gravitational lensing of light along different paths from a bright galaxy.. Gravitational-lensing data is not related to the CMB data from WMAP, so these results are independent of each other.

    The lensing data also yields an expansion rate of the universe which agrees with the dark-energy results of WMAP.

    Researchers at the Kavli Institute of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology employed Hubble telescope data for this project.

    (NOTE: The Kavli Foundation is a private organization started by a billionaire business leader in 2000. It is “dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of humanity, promoting public understanding of scientific research, and supporting scientists and their work.” It funds research in astrophysics, nanophysics, neuroscience, and theoretical physics. You might want to look into it.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s